Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 1–14 of 14 studies in Getting a diagnosis by Boeve BF · 29,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 14 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Getting a diagnosis” covers

Getting a diagnosis — How Alzheimer's is identified, how accurate the tests are, and how early it can be caught.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

In older cognitively unimpaired individuals (≥50 years), widespread, age-related elevated tau signal was seen among those with normal or abnormal amyloid status as compared to younger cognitively unimpaired individuals (30-49 years). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: Fourth consensus report of the DLB Consortium

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Neurology 2017-06-07

The Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) Consortium has refined its recommendations about the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB, updating the previous report, which has been in widespread use for the last decade. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Prevalence of mild cognitive impairment is higher in men. The Mayo Clinic Study of Aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2010-09-01

Among 1,969 subjects without dementia, 329 subjects had MCI, with a prevalence of 16.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4-17.5) for any MCI, 11.1% (95% CI 9.8-12.3) for amnestic MCI, and 4.9% (95% CI 4.0-5.8) for nonamnestic MCI. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,969 Evidence: low

Higher risk of progression to dementia in mild cognitive impairment cases who revert to normal

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2013-12-18

Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 153 of 534 participants (28.7%) with prevalent or incident MCI progressed to dementia (71.3 per 1,000 person-years). 2 key findings →

Participants: 534 Evidence: moderate

DLB fluctuations: specific features that reliably differentiate DLB from AD and normal aging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2004-01-01

Based on informant report, disturbed arousal and disorganized speech are specific aspects of fluctuations in dementia with Lewy bodies that reliably distinguish dementia with Lewy bodies from Alzheimer's disease and normal aging. 4 key findings →

Participants: 200 Evidence: low

We aimed to determine the regional pattern of brain atrophy associated with the C9ORF72 gene mutation, and to determine which regions best differentiate C9ORF72 from subjects with mutations in tau and progranulin, and from sporadic frontotemporal dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 76 Evidence: low

Incomplete penetrance was suggested in two kindreds, and the youngest generation had significantly earlier age of onset (>10 years) compared with the next oldest generation in 11 kindreds. 2 key findings →

Participants: 63 Evidence: low

Strengths of the study are that the subjects were randomly selected from a defined population, the majority of the subjects were examined in person, and MCI was defined using published criteria. 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,719 Evidence: moderate

DLB and PDD boundary issues: diagnosis, treatment, molecular pathology, and biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Neurology 2007-03-01

For more than a decade, researchers have refined criteria for the diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and at the same time have recognized that cognitive impairment and dementia occur commonly in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

The vast majority of men > or =50 years old initially diagnosed with iRBD in this study eventually developed a parkinsonian disorder/dementia, often after a prolonged interval from onset of iRBD, with the mean interval being 14 years while the range extended to 29 years. 2 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

The neuropathologic outcome of amnestic MCI following progression to dementia is heterogeneous, and it includes AD at a high frequency. 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 29,780 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 29,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (63.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.1%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,037 records (3.5% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed